Measurement as the Synthesis of Subjectivity and Objectivity

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Measurement as the Synthesis of Subjectivity and Objectivity

Postby Eodnhoj7 on April 21st, 2018, 11:23 am 

Measurement as the Synthesis of Subjectivity and Objectivity

Abstract: The subjective nature of consciousness, as premised in emotion and attachment, and the objective nature of consciousness as premised in non-attachment and inherent boundaries, are maintained and move through each other under the process of Measurement as the synthesis of axioms. This synthesis of axioms depends on an inherent form of alternation through rotation in which this process of alternation is the foundational movement of measurement that manifests further boundaries, such as the "line", which form the limits of existence.

Objectivity, that which is not influenced by personal opinions or feelings, observes an inherent degree of non-attachment where the individual (or group) is able to observe a situation for what it is while allowing it to exist for what it is. In these respects "objectivity" is an act (not feeling) of generation through measurement, considering it promotes a degree of freedom for the phenomena being observed that not just maintains the phenomena's existence but allows it to appear for what it is or maybe.

Subjectivity, that which is influenced by personal opinions or feelings, observes an inherent degree of attachment (primarily through emotions) where the individual (or group) is able to observe a situation as an extension of themselves in which it exists through them as them. In these respect "subjectivity" is an act of generation through measurement of the self, considering it promotes a degree of individual freedom for experiential phenomena that not just maintains the individual but allows the individual to appear for what he/she maybe.

In these respects the objective observes inherent external boundaries that form the internal subjective boundaries of the individual and the subjective observes inherent internal boundaries that form the external objective boundaries. An alternation of subjectivity and objectivity occurs as an alternation which forms boundaries from which both precede and end. This is considering:

a) The subjective experience, that which has no limits except for the individual in the respect it is not mirrored through group perception, forms an objective boundary by moving through these objective boundaries in accords to its degree of limitlessness. In simpler terms the ability for the observer to continually act without limit causes an inherent change in the environment, such as a drunk breaking a glass at a bar.

b) The objective, that which exists through limits and may form an individual in the respect it is mirrored through group perception, forms an inherent subjective lack of limit by moving through the subjective nature in accords to its degree of limit. In simpler terms the ability for the object to apply limits to an individuals absence of limit cause an inherent formation of the individual, such as a glass breaking in the hands of the drunk causes the drunk to stop drinking.

While consciousness has a subjective nature, its ability to measure by applying boundaries, requires a certain universality to the boundaries that transcend any subjective nature. These universal boundaries are fundamentally objective in nature as they maintain an inherent symmetry that mirrors itself through group

Take for example the simple application of a line. I may apply the line literally to form a divisive measurement to a physical peace of material or intuitively to measure a concept. Regardless of its physical or abstract nature these measurements are dependent upon the application of the line which exists objectively through the consciousness as a thing which forms it while simultaneously having a dual subjective nature through the manner in which it is applied.

This line exists dually as both object and subject considering:

1) The "line" has no feelings or attachments of any form.
a) A paradox occurs in the respect that while objectivity and subjectivity are determined by "attachment" (relegated to the dimension of emotion
inherent within the observer) the line it itself is a boundary of "attachment" between two points with this attachment implying a multiplicity conducive to change.

2) The application of the line, in the respect it exists through movement, mirrors the subjective state of the observer.

3) The line exists because of subjective, no-localized, movement where the observer manifests it from himself and through himself as a projection of himself.

4) This subjective nature, through which the line is applied, however cannot exist without the line (as a boundary) considering the attachments in themselves ("x" person is attached to "y" phenomena through "z" emotion) are dependent upon boundaries (observed through the line).

5) The line, as a means of measurement, exists dually as both subjective and objective.
a) The line as object is applied through a subjective manner and moves through the subjective with the subjective nature localizing itself as an object through the line. The line, as a measurement observes an inherent dualism through rotation of subject and object.


6) As both objective and subjective the line is a foundational axiom which folds through itself in the process of measurement.

7) The synthesis of the axiom, as objective and subjective phenomena through the process of measurement, mirrors a folding of space through itself.
a) Ex: I measure a piece of wood and cut it. This one piece of wood now exists as two pieces of wood and the phenomena of the "wood" as existing of time and space as particles or parts of a larger whole, "folds" through this same framework (nature) because of a process of measurement. This cutting of the wood in turn mirrors the movements of the observer who cuts it in a manner which requires the observe himself to move (swing axe) through time and space. Hence the wood folds and the observer folds, through time space, by a process of measurement in which the observer applies and exists through the synthesis of measurements (making x cut y times) that are self-evident.

This act of measurement, observes an inherent process of "division" which dually manifests a simultaneously multiplication where 1/2 may equal 1/2 but it simultaneously manifests two parts. 1 in these respects observes a potential nature with 2 being an active localized nature. This locality and non-locality as active and passive movement in turn observes that measurement in itself is conducive to a form of "movement" through change under an inherent dualism. In these respects measurement observes a reality by creating a polarity of actuality and potentiality with polarity being inseparable from duality.

Now can "one" existence be divided, considering a perspective where "all" exists as "all"? Not necessarily, but the application of dimensions causes a form of movement inherent with the measurement process itself. The physical act of applying a line causes a division, or change, in a piece of wood while the abstract act of applying a line causes a division, or change, in the concept itself. Measurement in these respects causes reality to fold through itself and inherently moved towards a potential nature. This movement, in itself, is an approximation of infinite movement as finite movement, with the infinite movement acting as one. Hence finiteness is inherent within objectivity.

This active nature of measurement, as localization, observes an inherent form of Objectivity through change in which a phenomena moves towards a potential end. This potential end, while formless, exists as a barrier through which the localized phenomena exists.

While objectivity, as the observation of physical boundaries or abstract dimensions (hence "object"), exists as an active state it moves through the subjective nature which in itself is non-localized or lacking structure.

In practical terms, an object (such as a sandwich), inherently affects the course of the subjective experience as the subjective "envelopes" the object through the various senses (much like an active locality is enveloped by a potential reality) and in turn integrates this experience. This integration of the object through the subject in turn alternates the subject into an object. We can see this in the respect that the sandwich integrates within the subjective nature of the individual and objectifies it by allowing him/her to exist (ie we eat therefore we exist).

This attachment through experience (mostly emotional) creates a common bond between the object and the subject by allowing them to exist and move through each. This movement, as attachment, in itself is a locality of sort in the respect it exists as a boundary through connection. All boundaries, as observations of movement, in themselves are active and hence localized. For example: "I like "x" sandwich" hence a boundary of movement is formed between the sandwich and I which gives structure to both.

I need the sandwich to exist while the sandwich cannot exist without me. This connect while observed in physical localized movements, also exists at a subjective irrational level where the emotions or desires (such as "like") are boundaries. (What seperates the localized nature of subjectivity and objectivity is the degree of symmetry where a subjective experience does not always mere an objective reality)


In these respects emotions have an inherent objective nature, while not observed strictly by the current notion of "objectivity" as absence of emotional attachment, considering they have boundaries which move through other boundaries (ex: happiness moves through anger, etc.). Emotions act as objects in these manner considering they have observable and moveable "boundaries".

Observed from a dual alternate perspective the objective is rooted in the subjective where there is no true objectivity (observed by some philosophers such as Neitszche) considering the object observed from a position of non-attachment is still observed through a subjective individual (ex: objectivity of science is determined by subjective questioning process which in itself is non-scientific).
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018
vivian maxine liked this post


Re: Measurement as the Synthesis of Subjectivity and Objecti

Postby Braininvat on April 21st, 2018, 12:22 pm 

Here are statements that I believe are relevant to this thread:

1. I have read philosophy for 40 years, taking college level courses, and moderated philosophic and scientific discussions here and at another website, for 8 years.

2. I find the OP to be incomprehensible. Basic terms are not defined, or defined idiosyncratically. Psychological concepts and geometric concepts are abstracted in some way that attempts to blend them, without laying any foundation that would be comprehensible to a lay reader or even one with philosophical training. Dynamic relationships are described with poorly defined expressions like "folding into" or "boundaries" or "moving through," that obscure, rather than clarify, meaning. It is impossible to tell when a term is used literally or metaphorically - never a good sign in prose.

3. I respect your quest for knowledge and your gentility as a poster. However, these postings do not meet basic forum standards for clear communication. Consider this a friendly warning. You need to start making sense. If I can't follow your writing, then I don't know what hope there would be for a lay reader coming to this website.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6784
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
DragonFly liked this post


Re: Measurement as the Synthesis of Subjectivity and Objecti

Postby Eodnhoj7 on April 23rd, 2018, 10:03 am 

Braininvat » April 21st, 2018, 12:22 pm wrote:Here are statements that I believe are relevant to this thread:

1. I have read philosophy for 40 years, taking college level courses, and moderated philosophic and scientific discussions here and at another website, for 8 years.

And I respect that. At the age of 28 I can only argue 10+ years of study ranging from the practical everyday to the standard testing of the academic level.

2. I find the OP to be incomprehensible. Basic terms are not defined, or defined idiosyncratically. Psychological concepts and geometric concepts are abstracted in some way that attempts to blend them, without laying any foundation that would be comprehensible to a lay reader or even one with philosophical training. Dynamic relationships are described with poorly defined expressions like "folding into" or "boundaries" or "moving through," that obscure, rather than clarify, meaning. It is impossible to tell when a term is used literally or metaphorically - never a good sign in prose.

Your point is correct, and I will work to clarify the terms assuming any further dialogue stems from them. With that being said, it has been my observation along with those of the people I have learned from and observed in academia that generally speaking much of what a philosopher argues is often times rarely understood in its entirety. Even the professors I studied under admitted to not understanding what certain texts clarified. At an objective level, looking at the introduction of most philosophical texts, the author often claims the inherent problems of interpretation in regards to specific texts and how these interpretation often branch off to form seperate understandings. Historically Plato and Aristotle branched off from Socrates with each school having further branching effects.

Wittgenstein observed this, as everyone knows, with the inherent problems of language.

Nietzche observed part of this confusion.

Socrates was accused of causing this very same confusion.

Even in fields stemming from philosophical discourse:

Theologians, from various religious schools and rights, have observed this relative to understand the texts they study.


To summate by brief point above, "understanding" often has a branching effect where an axiom, metaphorically much like a "seed", either takes root in the mind or does not. It grows like a plant into further seeds depending on the mind, but generally speaking not everyone's minds are the same. We can see this even within the field of science in the common debate between the natures of particles and fields. Often times it appears as if most scientists are talking over eachother's heads, the historical example of introduction of relativity comes to mind.


3. I respect your quest for knowledge and your gentility as a poster. However, these postings do not meet basic forum standards for clear communication. Consider this a friendly warning. You need to start making sense. If I can't follow your writing, then I don't know what hope there would be for a lay reader coming to this website.


Thank you for your warning, would it be better if I just posted in Personal Theories (it might save confusion) assuming I decide or am allowed to post further?
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Measurement as the Synthesis of Subjectivity and Objecti

Postby Braininvat on April 23rd, 2018, 12:09 pm 

I don't know quite where this topic goes. Your meditation on the sandwich seems almost poetic, but perhaps Anything Philosophy is the best overall fit.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6784
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Measurement as the Synthesis of Subjectivity and Objecti

Postby Eodnhoj7 on April 23rd, 2018, 12:11 pm 

To summarize the above into more digestible points:

1) Subjective (no boundaries) and Objectivity (boundaries) alternate through each other.

2) This alternation in turn forms both in one respect (objective giving boundaries to the subjective) and provides possibilities for the other to move through (subjective providing means for objective to continue through).


3) This "existence" of one through the other as "alternation" observes an inherent spatial geometric nature to these different dimensions of knowledge. Subjectivity and objectivity, as consciousness, extends from a form of measurement which is inherently simultaneously circular and linear and in these respects consciousness itself may extend from space itself.

4) Boundaries, inherently spatial constructs we observe realistically and intuitively, form the process of measurement with the act of measurement itself, as premised in "space", being a folding or movement through itself.

a) measurement as a form of reality "folding" through itself , premised under the "line", requires the line as a thing it itself to fold through itself through the subjective median of the "I" as an objective structure. This line exists as the line, and folds through reality under the subjective experience, in the respect that the "I" as a measurer applies boundaries to reality which further change it by providing focal points of movement.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Measurement as the Synthesis of Subjectivity and Objecti

Postby Eodnhoj7 on April 23rd, 2018, 12:16 pm 

Braininvat » April 23rd, 2018, 12:09 pm wrote:I don't know quite where this topic goes. Your meditation on the sandwich seems almost poetic, but perhaps Anything Philosophy is the best overall fit.


Do what you want, I won't be offend either way.

The "synthesis" of various subjects can be..."tricky" might be the word?

I posted it here because frankly I don't know where to put it. In dealing with the course of multiple philosophies and sciences observing a unity causes a paradox of category where the question occurs:

1) Is a new category being observed?
2) Or is a general overarching subcategory being observed?
3) Both? Or Neither?

This applies to observing any unity between geometry and consciousness as both seem to require each other in one degree or another.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Measurement as the Synthesis of Subjectivity and Objecti

Postby DragonFly on April 23rd, 2018, 5:19 pm 

What is measured becomes subjective and symbolic, while what is objective must conform to physical laws.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Measurement as the Synthesis of Subjectivity and Objecti

Postby BadgerJelly on April 23rd, 2018, 10:29 pm 

Eod -

I don't think a summary helps. Like I've said elsewhere you need to present this bit by bit and with extreme pedantry.

Off on holiday soon so I may find some time to jump back into this over the next week or two.

to all -

At its heart this is phenomenology. It may be worth reading about how Husserl used the term "poles"?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Measurement as the Synthesis of Subjectivity and Objecti

Postby Eodnhoj7 on April 24th, 2018, 11:09 am 

DragonFly » April 23rd, 2018, 5:19 pm wrote:What is measured becomes subjective and symbolic, while what is objective must conform to physical laws.



The problem occurs:

1) The measurement process itself has an inherently inseparable subjective element considering that the application of the measurement has no objective standard. We may have an objective form, through the scientific method, but the premise hypothesis/questions from which the measurement begins are subjective. This "form" itself is dependent upon various subjective reasoning processes that eventually mirrored eachother until a group consensus was reached.

2) The question/hypothesis may be viewed as the encapsulation of a deficiency in reasoning. Where the question may have "x" amount of correct answers, the question is the variable which determines the answers being perceived. "Y" question may have "a,b,c" as possible answers, but if "Z" question is asked then "a,b,c" may not be observed and "d,e,f" may be observed instead.

3) Considering the question/hypothesis is dependent upon a subjective nature the subjective applies boundaries or reason, that while rational (as the question/hypothesis observes the relation of concepts) do not have a strictly rational origin. To simplify this point, while a question may be rational in the respect it maintains a symmetry to the problem, the origin of question is not strictly rational as it comes from "unknowing" or "nothingness".

The subjective self, is not objective in the respect it is not universal. Objectivity can be argued as a universally agreed upon subjectivity, with subjectivity being a "part of" or "fractured" objectivity.

While "objectivity" generally does apply to physical laws it also translates to understanding of evidence, which are oftentimes conceptual as the laws of the physical universe are abstractions, yet objective nonetheless.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018



Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests